To be honest, a widespread 'defi'-implosion that tanks the whole market is kind of on-brand for the wild west of money.
Wasabi wallet 2.0 is now making coinjoin transactions on main-net, here's an example:
This is a very large transaction, 93 inputs and 170 outputs. Every output has one or more equal-value counterparts, from 0.67x bitcoin all the way down to 5,000 sats.
I think this is the first public reply to Satoshi's announcement that the Bitcoin v0.1 software was ready. Amusingly and perhaps fittingly, Finney muses about a thoroughly-adopted bitcoin reaching a price of $10 million per coin. Quite the price target, just two days after release! 😂
This all hinges on an assumption that the exchange's wallet would create a tx with a fee rate high enough to push your transaction through, which may not happen.
If you watched on-chain activity closely enough, you may be able to find a hot-wallet that acts appropriately to make this happen though.
& fwiw this is just a thought experiment, I don't actually recommend trying this :p
Lets say you had a large amount of UTXOs that you wanted to consolidate, but didn't want to pay the fee.
What if you found a highly active wallet (eg an exchange hot-wallet), and as part of your consolidation tx, created an output paying to said wallet? You publish this tx with low fees, and it remains unconfirmed until the exchange wallet uses the UTXO you sent it in a transaction, essentially CPFP'ing your consolidation transaction through? 😈
Failed attempts at finding a proof of work are not wasteful.
From bitcoin.stackexchange: some information about which different bitcoin-core clients treat Taproot outputs/spends as standard/nonstandard.
I've also wondered about this with OP_CTV, does it enable easier censorship by eg, a government? Even if not able to create explicitly recursive transactions on-chain, there could be a wallet.gov that only pays to other wallet.gov, enforcing the recursiveness off-chain.
As pointed out in that link, this could also be done today via multisig.
But I'm not sure that is a good justification for creating more potential censorship vectors? Hmm
Side note: when I was first learning about bitcoin I found it odd that there wasn't a simple 'list of consensus rules'. Well, there is a lot of nuance!
eg, Pieter's answer also explains why the 2013 BDB -> LevelDB migration caused a 'non-deterministic hard-fork': each node will have a roughly unique collection of block.dat files, and the specific construction of those files can affect how they're stored in memory. Start reaching memory limits... and woops! Non-deterministic hardfork.
An easter egg in the bitcoin blockchain: a tribute to Len Sassaman.
I haven't posted any bitcoin.stackexchange questions here in a while. Here is one that is of interest: Why does segwit implement new address formats?
Pet peeve: when customers pay me using some service that specializes in "making payments easier, cheaper, faster, etc".
Why tf do I need to sign up for 100 different payment services? Each one of them wants all of my personal/business info too. This is ridiculous. You have my bank account info! How is all of this extra friction somehow cheaper than just sending a wire payment? Goddamnit.
Something about how #bitcoin fixes this, but I bet such companies will be common in the btc space too...
Small update, screengrab sourced from Twitter 😢
Of course, even when participating in a non-censoring coinjoin, a user can prove the ‘legitimacy’ of their funds in private if required, but the knowledge just isn’t there yet, unfortunately.
So, this all just makes me more hopeful that payjoin/payswap type transactions will slowly become more common, as they can be designed to have an indiscernible fingerprint on chain (hence less censorship risk). Privacy is important! Let’s hope the tech outraces the regulators here.
But now, back to the original problem: we should strive to do better than just mirroring the legacy financial system’s censorship decrees. I fully agree with this!
But, there is the very real-world need for privacy protocols that don’t degrade the UX (ie, no chance of getting blacklisted yourself). I hope that eventually,any solutions will exist, and they will undoubtedly each have their own trade offs.
Consider this: in the eyes of a regulated and overzealous exchange service, receiving a UTXO with a history that includes a coinjoin via a coordinator that blacklists sanctioned UTXOs should be *much less* of an issue than receiving a UTXO from a non-censoring coordinator’s coinjoin.
So for those not on sanction lists, wasabi’s coordinator could still provide great privacy, potentially with even a better UX (as they won’t get black listed themselves!)
It’s sad to see that Wasabi wallet had to bend to regulatory pressure, but maybe not surprising. The implications are kinda interesting though, I think there is more nuance to it than most people commenting online are implying:
- this is obviously bad overall because it allows bitcoin to start mirroring the legacy financial system’s censorship issues
- BUT it doesn’t actually mean wasabi is broken entirely: the average user would still have better privacy using it, vs naive bitcoin use
Nice article comparing IBD times for different versions of bitcoin-core.
Wasabi 2.0 looks interesting!
Bitcoin Maston Instance